One more mystery: why are commenters on this board (I’m thinking in particular of Gregg and Wodun) so convinced that Obama and Clinton publicly blamed the Benghazi attack on the “Innocence of Muslims” video?

Because that was the immediate take of what they said by the entire press core. Susan Rice’s comments weren’t new – they fit everything said to that point. (Except for Obama’s excised referenced to terrorism in the CBS interview.)

Parsed lawyerly with the knowledge it had nothing to do with the video, one goes back and can make arguments like ‘speaking in general’ or ‘they’re referring to all the embassies’ etc.

But without hindsight and a very flexible rearranging of history, that just isn’t what they were stating or implying.

Because that was the immediate take of what they said by the entire press core.

So it doesn’t matter what they said, what matters is the press corps’ “take” on what they said? It’s an awfully subtle cover-up that comes out and says the thing supposedly being covered up, and counts on the press to report something else.

Except for Obama’s excised referenced to terrorism in the CBS interview

Or Clinton’s reference to heavy assault, or other references to extremists and terrorists.

Parsed lawyerly

I.e. actually reading what they said.

that just isn’t what they were stating or implying

It certainly wasn’t what they were stating, and you want to hold them responsible for the fact that some people took what they said to mean something else?

It is worth noting that Obama and Clinton speak a lot. They had plenty of time to correct any mistaken impressions that you allege occurred. They also have a variety of strong reasons from personal through national level for doing so. Instead, they sent Rice out to blame the Benghazi attacks on a movie.

It’s pretty clear that what really happened is that they downplayed the significance of the attack (and yes, blamed it on a YouTube movie) so that it wouldn’t be a factor on election day. And I find it interesting how incurious you are about the absence (seven months later) of witness reports from people who were there.

Now, you might not care, but I am concerned that US leadership may have left a bunch of people to die in Benghazi. If that happened, that’s a betrayal and a show of weakness. Such things have consequences even if they’re swept under the rug and ignored.

Why would many commentators beso convinced that Obama and Clinton publicly blamed the Benghazi attack on the “Innocence of Muslims” video?t
Gee, I don’t know, Maybe because as Hillary said, “We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing do to with.”
You can see Hillary say it here: //pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2013/05/07/hillary-pushed-internet-video-meme-at-victims-funeral/
You can also read the transcript from the state department. //www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/09/197780.htm
You can also find President Obama’s Representative Susan Rice say the cause of the attack was
“based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.”
//abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-us-ambassador-united-nations-susan-rice/story?id=17240933
She repeated what the cause was a second time.
“What happened this week in Cairo, in Benghazi, in many other parts of the region was a result — a direct result of a heinous and offensive video that was widely disseminated, that the U.S. government had nothing to do with, which we have made clear is reprehensible and disgusting.”
Which she followed up with,
“As a senior US diplomat, I agreed to a White House request to appear on the Sunday shows to talk about the full range of national security issues of the day,” she said.
//usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/16/13896494-ambassador-rice-benghazi-attack-began-spontaneously?lite
So the Secretary of State, and a US ambassador, speaking on the behalf of the United States, and therefore the President of the United States said the cause of the events in Cairo and Benghazi was an internet video.
Now I suppose we could be wrong and it isn’t the ”Innocence of Muslims” video they are talking about but some other video. But all the reporters I have read seem to think it is. I supposed it could be a Bugs Bunny video they are referring to. Perhaps they should have been clearer in their statements.
Or maybe they were referring to a different set of attacks that were caused by the video and not the ones in Cairo and Benghazi on September 11 2012. But I don’t recall other multiple attacks like that on some other date.
Also Hillary and Susan could have been speaking for themselves in a private capacity and not the Government and President Obama representative. But since they keep being announces by their titles as Secretary of State and Ambassador it would suggest that they are speaking for the President in a office capacity. Also since president Obama has mentions his support for them during the harsh criticism they endured. It seems that he was supporting what they were saying.
Perhaps you might provide other videos and transcripts that could better explain the inexplicable mystery why some commenters on this board might be convinced that Obama and Clinton publicly blamed the Benghazi attack on the “Innocence of Muslims” video?

Yes, Susan Rice incorrectly lumped the Benghazi attack in with the other violence that was prompted by the video. Susan Rice is not Barack Obama and Susan Rice is not Hillary Clinton.

If Susan Rice didn’t work for Clinton who in turn worked for Obama and her remarks were promptly corrected by one of the above (publicly, of course), then you’d have a point. I find it remarkable that you don’t get the point of having Rice make those statements instead of Clinton or Obama.

As I see it (and you should too!), if someone makes a statement in my name and I let it stand, then it is my statement. Rice wasn’t speaking as a private citizen. So if she blames Banghazi on a movie, then Obama and Clinton, her superiors did so – by proxy, even if they contrived it so that the actual words didn’t come out of their mouths.

I find it remarkable how this simple ruse gets by you when it’s someone on your side.

As an aside, we have actual transcripts mentioned elsewhere in this discussion and you still insist that they somehow refer to certain embassy attacks but not the high profile consulate attack in Benghazi mentioned sometimes in the same breath. The extent of your delusion is rather profound.

Hel, we should go back through the archive -here- and make a list of all the people mocked for believing that hive-of-villany Fox on trivial little details like mortarfire and RPGs. (Even when the reporting isn’t, you know, by -Fox-.)

The whole idea that it wasn’t a spontaneous demonstration in Benghazi was given the “All In” defense as well.

Jim, you’ve made several posts from your reality distortion field, but this one takes the cake.

I’m interested in the reality distortion field that can convince you and others here that Obama and Clinton have personally and publicly blamed the Benghazi attack on the video, when no transcript of them doing so seems to exist. Now that’s a powerful RDF.

So when Sec. Clinton says “We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing do to with” which embassies and what other video was she referring to?

“One more mystery: why are commenters on this board (I’m thinking in particular of Gregg and Wodun) so convinced that Obama and Clinton publicly blamed the Benghazi attack on the “Innocence of Muslims” video?”

Why? As a guess, it just might be because Obama and Clinton did exactly that.

For example, at Chris Steven’s memorial service, Hilary Clinton gave a speech. Here’s a quote from the State Department transcript.

“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with. It is hard for the American people to make sense of that because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable.

The people of Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and Tunisia did not trade the tyranny of a dictator for the tyranny of a mob. Reasonable people and responsible leaders in these countries need to do everything they can to restore security and hold accountable those behind these violent acts. And we will, under the President’s leadership, keep taking steps to protect our personnel around the world.”

I suggest the second of the embedded vids; that’s a much shorter version, showing only Clinton saying the above quoted words.

So, why do I believe that she said that? Because she did.

Let’s not forget Susan Rice, US ambassador to the UN, sent on talk shows to spout the video line. Just who do you think sent here there? She was there as a spokesperson for the administration.

Mattm’s post delves deeper into the issue.

Also, regarding Cairo. The US embassy there was overrun, by what was said to be a spontaneous riot against that tape. There were no casualties, because the embassy had been evacuated several hours before.

I’ll say it again; the US Embassy in Cairo was evacuated several hours before the SPONTANEOUS riot.

Just how does one get forewarning of something spontaneous? Hrmm?

And why, if there was a security alert for Cairo (and there was, that’s why the embassy was evacuated) wasn’t a reaction force on alert that day?

Oh, you mentioned Obama too. Why do I think he said it was the video? Because he did. Let’s not forget that Clinton and Rice are his spokespeople. However, set that aside. What about repeated explicit statements from his press secretary at a press conference?

In which case it should be easy to find a transcript of them doing so. But so far none of you have managed that.

We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men.

“Heavy assault” (i.e. not a spontaneous protest), and no mention of a video.

We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with.

There’s no embassy in Benghazi.

Let’s not forget Susan Rice

Is that an admission that Obama and Clinton never personally did what you’re accusing them of doing?

What about repeated explicit statements from his press secretary at a press conference?

I see repeated statements about the video causing unrest in the region, not the Benghazi attack specifically. And again, why are you talking about Carney when your claim is that Obama and Clinton personally blamed the attack on the video?

She’s at the memorial service for the fallen of the Benghazi attack. She mentions Benghazi in the same paragraph as the other embassy riots. Between association of location and understanding of english, she’s discussing Benghazi. If she isn’t discussing Benghazi, what the hell was she doing at the memorial service giving a speech?

That’s ignoring the collaborative statements by the family members. Apparently such statements are iron clad facts when brought forward by those with “ultimate moral authority” against Bush. But when such statements fit the narrative presented by the US Ambassador to the UN, Obama’s speech to the UN, and Hilary’s speech at the Benghazi memorial service; then it is all a misunderstanding.

Yeah Jim, you’re just full of BS on this. Let us know when you find any evidence that the riots were ever based on the claimed video. Evidence that existed before the Department of State narrative.

“One more mystery: why are commenters on this board (I’m thinking in particular of Gregg and Wodun) so convinced that Obama and Clinton publicly blamed the Benghazi attack on the “Innocence of Muslims” video?”

No mystery – they did. And you were shown where they and their spokes-people did.

Fox News gives this story more coverage than it gives the entire Afghan war. Surely if Obama or Clinton had publicly blamed the Benghazi attack on the video, Fox would have the transcript. So why don’t you post a link to their story?

The attacks on the civilians in Benghazi were attacks on America. We are grateful for the assistance we received from the Libyan government and from the Libyan people. There should be no doubt that we will be relentless in tracking down the killers and bringing them to justice. And I also appreciate that in recent days, the leaders of other countries in the region — including Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen — have taken steps to secure our diplomatic facilities, and called for calm. And so have religious authorities around the globe.

Besides the fact we haven’t tracked down any of the killers, note that Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen are brought into the discussion about Benghazi. Later…

That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.

Oh, but Jim will say, “he’s referring to the other embassy attacks, not the particular embassy attack in Benghazi”, or some other deflection, as if Al Qaeda flags weren’t carried by the protestors in those other countries, chants of “we’re all Osama now”, and oh yeah, they occurred around September 11th. But there is more:

know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. And the answer is enshrined in our laws: Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

Oh wait, that’s not the more, but interesting, no?

And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence. (Applause.) There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There’s no video that justifies an attack on an embassy.

Why would the President make this statement? There was no video justification of the attack. The threats made had nothing to do with the video, so why make that statement?

You know what’s interesting about this entire transcript, do a search on “terror”. The word, or version of the word, exists only once:

In Iran, we see where the path of a violent and unaccountable ideology leads. The Iranian people have a remarkable and ancient history, and many Iranians wish to enjoy peace and prosperity alongside their neighbors. But just as it restricts the rights of its own people, the Iranian government continues to prop up a dictator in Damascus and supports terrorist groups abroad. Time and again, it has failed to take the opportunity to demonstrate that its nuclear program is peaceful, and to meet its obligations to the United Nations.

Doesn’t seem like the President really thought Benghazi was a terrorist event. But the word “video”, in relation to Muslim outrage, is mentioned at least 6 times.

The part that’s missing is realizing that these speeches were written in advance with exactly these initial interpretations and the creative re-interpretations by the sycophants in mind.

The one viewpoint “Ahh, but the discussion shifts to discussing -all- the rage” allows the point “But we weren’t -talking- about the Ambassador!”

But if you’re accepting that shift, you’re also accepting that right after an American Consulate/Annex/whatever was overrun both the President and the Secretary of State gave speeches that were “5% deaths, 95% fake-rage-protests.”

“But if you’re accepting that shift, you’re also accepting that right after an American Consulate/Annex/whatever was overrun both the President and the Secretary of State gave speeches that were “5% deaths, 95% fake-rage-protests.”

Because a video had been used to justify attacks on embassies in Egypt and Tunisia. Is it so hard for you to remember that the Benghazi consulate attack was not the only anti-US violence in the region at that time?

In fact Obama KNEW – absolutely KNEW – the video had noting to do with any embassy or consulate threats, attacks, protests etc.

He knew it for a fact. This has been proven. This is no longer in doubt nor can it be argued away.

You can keep saying that, but it doesn’t make it true. Here’s the AP on September 11:

Hours before the Benghazi attack, hundreds of mainly ultraconservative Islamist protesters in Egypt marched to the U.S. Embassy in downtown Cairo, gathering outside its walls and chanting against the movie and the U.S.

Here’s the Christian Science Monitor on September 13:

Morsi’s first response didn’t come until yesterday afternoon. Even then, in statements read by his spokesman and released on his official Facebook page, he did not condemn the breach of the embassy. Instead, he denounced the obscure anti-Islam film, produced by Coptic and evangelical Christians, that sparked the protests when it was publicized by Egyptian media, called for the filmmakers to be prosecuted, and said Egypt supports peaceful protests.

And see Reuters, below.

You really want to argue that the video had nothing to do with the protests that erupted in nearly 20 Arab countries at that time? That Obama used a Jedi mind trick to convince the entire world press, along with Morsi, to link the protests to the video?

CSM is dated September 13th, after the State Department started claiming the video was the cause. The riots outside the Egyptian US embassy began before September 11th. Where is the evidence prior to the US Embassy’s statement condemning the “abuse of free speech” that a video was the reason for the riots?

I can find video imagery of the riots prior to September 11th with pictures of the Al Qaeda flag and chants of “We are all Osama!”, but not one story prior to September 11th saying the riots were based on a video. I can also find various stories of bombings outside Coptic churches, attacks on other embassies, attempts to overthrow other governments in the region, and none of those incidents blame a youtube video.

You really want to argue that the video had nothing to do with the protests that erupted in nearly 20 Arab countries at that time?

Show us some evidence that doesn’t rely on the US government’s narrative. Are you seriously going to suggest that despite the Arab Spring going on before the video was created and still continuing to this day; that only this particular event was based on a youtube video? Is the war in Syria because of a youtube video?

And idiot, Obama does Jedi mind melds, because he’s ignorant that way.

So what is the source for the other embassy attacks being caused by a video? Other than the Department of State.

On September 10th, coverage (BBC and Fox) of the embassy riots make no mention of any video. However, there is discussion about the Israeli embassy in Egypt being evacuated after it was attacked earlier in the week. Israel didn’t make the video.

No mention of the video occurs until the US Embassy in Egypt on September 11 writes its anti-first amendment statement: We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”

No one has ever condemned Monty Python.

Still, no evidence that a video invoked the riots prior to September 11th. Lots of evidence of Al Qaeda flags and chants of “We are all Osama”.

BTW, Wikipedia talks about a lot of nations trying to ban the video, but all the linked news reports were after 9/11. In fact, several riots and issuance of fatwas don’t occur until October.

Demonstrators attacked the U.S. embassies in Yemen and Egypt on Thursday in protest at a film they consider blasphemous to Islam, and American warships headed towards Libya after the U.S. ambassador there was killed in related violence this week.

In Libya, authorities said they had made four arrests in the investigation into the attack that killed ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americas in Benghazi on Tuesday.

President Barack Obama has vowed to bring to justice those responsible for the Benghazi attack, which U.S. officials said may have been planned in advance, possibly by an al Qaeda-linked group.

That’s after 9/11 and thus after the State Department started circulating the false story on Benghazi. What about 9/10? 9/9? The video was posted in July, so plenty of time to find evidence of outrage prior to 9/11. Where is it?

Oops, you mean there were attacks on embassies in Egypt during September 2011? My bad. What caused those attacks? A video?

Still waiting on some evidence from you. I asked a few days ago. You haven’t provided anything. In fact, you’ve spent most of this thread trying to claim nobody mentioned the video. But we found ample transcripts.

Ok Jim, where’s your apology for blaming the Benghazi attack on a spontaneous attack? You think Obama and Clinton didn’t suggest it, but you and Gerrib sure as hell have. Where’s your apology?

Why did you ever claim the attacks in Benghazi were caused by a spontaneous attack? Where’s your evidence that supports the claim? Don’t point to the media, because they were repeating the Department of State’s memo, and you are claiming that nobody in the administration is personally to blame for that memo, so you can’t blame the media either.

Most of us did our own research of the issue in days after the attack and concluded it was a planned attack. To date, nothing has shown that conclusion to be wrong. So Jim, where’s your apology to us?

Gee, I wonder if the US government said anything about the attacks of Sept 11th prior to Sept 13th?

By the way, in his famous Pearl Harbor “day of infamy” speech, FDR never came out and said that the Japanese government was behind, or responsible for, the attack on Pearl Harbor. He did blame them for an attack on Malay, though.

The only AP reports I’ve seen from September 11th reference the US embassy in Egypt, which is run by the Department of State. Perhaps you can provide something to support your claim rather than asserting the AP wrote something.

But the AP did not say that protesters were protesting in Libya. The White House and State Department said that, knowing from multiple sources, from drones to people on the ground, that such a claim was false.

You can parse things to claim that FDR never implicated the Japanese government in the attack on Pearl Harbor, and you can claim that Bluto thought it was a German attack because some news outlet reported that the German’s were advancing into Russia, but claims that the press started the confusion between the Japanese attack and a German attack won’t work when the White House was the source spreading the confusion, and when such confusion didn’t appear until days after the White House started spreading it, knowing that it was completely false.

The implication of grouping events and locations together is that they share an affiliation. Sort of like your defense for claiming Obama did call it terrorism in his Rose Garden speech. Of course Obama didn’t say it was an act of terrorism but because part of the speech referenced acts of terror you took it to mean Benghazi as well even though the reference to Benghazi was not even in the same paragraph as acts of terror.

Here there actually is an attempt by the Obama administration to link all of the events on 9/11 together in the same paragraph. It is an intentional construct to link the protests with the attack.

You are very inconsistent and contradictory in your defense.

And do you really need to bring up your birther type conspiracy theory that Cheney said Iraq was behind 9/11? And after all the crazy stuff you say about Bush, why are you defending Obama for one upping him? After they way you treated Bush, isn’t it incumbent of you to hold Obama to the same standard?

But hey, its good to know you are down with witness intimidation, jailing people for exercising their 1st ammendment rights, and failing to provide even the minimum accepted security to an ambassador in a country where our President just help over throw the government without going to congress.

They happened on the same day, in the same part of the world, with similar targets. Of course they talked about them together!

In this very thread multiple commenters have mixed up the consulate attack with embassy attacks in other countries.

You really want to argue that the video had nothing to do with the protests that erupted in nearly 20 Arab countries at that time?

Because a video had been used to justify attacks on embassies in Egypt and Tunisia. Is it so hard for you to remember that the Benghazi consulate attack was not the only anti-US violence in the region at that time?

She’s referring to the embassies in Egypt, Yemen and Tunisia. The Benghazi facility was a consulate, not an embassy.

Did you not know that there was other, non-Benghazi violence directed at US diplomatic posts that day?

The video did spawn violence, in quite a few countries! But if Obama said that it caused the Benghazi attack, you haven’t yet found the quote.

No, you haven’t found a single quote where Obama or Clinton publicly blames the video for the Benghazi attack.

None of Matt M’s transcripts show Obama or Clinton claiming that the video caused the Benghazi attack.

————————————————–

So according to Jim the video is responsible for protests and violence in 20 Arab countries all occurring at the same time on Sept 11 but somehow was not the cause for the attack in Benghazi. Also the fact that it was a consulate and not an embassy in Benghazi which makes it distinct and separate with no relation to the other attacks that occurred on 9/11. So of course they talked about them together. Except when they didn’t.

Regardless the important thing to realize is that you can’t point to Obama and Clinton or their representatives speaking for them in an official capacity saying the video was responsible for the attack in Benghazi.

Because it wasn’t. Or it was. Whichever. What difference does it make?

In conclusion, according to Jim, what you hear is not what you are hearing. What you read is not what you are reading. What you see is not what you are seeing.

Regarding Obama and Clinton saying that the attack in Benghazi was due to the video, I’d like to ask you a simple question;

What’s YOUR interpretation of the US Ambassador to the United Nations making that explicit claim on TV five times, and also to the president’s press secretary, at a news conference, making that statement (that it was the video) numerous times?

Do you believe they were speaking on behalf of the administration? If not, then what do you think they were doing?